rockyandchloe
53523
1509
78
Amendment bargaining, Republicans??
Presidential candidates can neither ignore the 14th nor the 22nd. This humourous example is to show this importance.
FP Edit: Also to show maga how ridiculous they sound, and thanks for your downvotes. Your tears are watering my plants...
rezexelon
Except for the "Rules for thee but not for me thing" I think it sounds pretty workable.
jery007
Out of the 300 000 000 people in the US. There's gotta be others. I'm sure Barack has had enough with the 8 years he already did
MatrimBloodyCauthon
Sorry. Did you think you were talking to people who know what the word consistency means?
harambedaycare
Or..or.. just let Bernie compete.
sadurdaynight
Folks that do this joke bargaining.. you're joking, but this is what the other side wants. They want outlandish ideas floated, so then it becomes a negotiation. Then when you don't give them the outlandish stuff they want b/c you were just joking they go "oh, there's no reasoning with these people!" If someone is breaking the law, they should be put in jail. We shouldn't start joking about negotiations, b/c sometimes those get real.
MrTenant2
We're assuming Obama wants to run again? Cool, yea, if he does. Did anyone ask him?
zanaria
Unfortunately Trump has already shown that he also wants to ignore the 22nd. Remember he has stated that he wants a third term, by claiming the people would want that...
quietwalker
How about this deal; we get to throw Trump off a cliff to his death, and when giving statements to the press, we'll lower the volume on the stereo playing "Celebration," and try not to giggle when we say things like, "Yes, his death was a tragedy."
MJChossi
I choose obama over biden any day of the week
psmith00
The Repugnicans would never agree to this as it would grant someone outside their party an advantage a=that hey believe only they are due. BUT, when you bring up the term limit for Presidents how do the Repugnicans square Trump running again when there are people in their party who sincerely believe that he is actually still the president running things from a clandestine position while Biden is just a cover sitting in the open. that would make a 2024 Trump victory his third term.
mikebaxter18350
Yup
whatdidyoureallyexpect
I sincerely hope your plants are salt tolerant…
snatchingbabies
I have a feeling the vast majority of Republican politicians and media figures would love that. Things were so much easier for them when they didn't have to pretend that the anti-immigration forced birther masquerading as a Democrat was somehow terrible for them. It was so much easier when they could just say "look he's black"
Flodos
God, Obama bears part of the blame we're in this mess. Fucking corpocrat.
Eleshar24
As a European, I think majority of his "blame" is actually him being partially black because apparently a large segment of Americans is not ready to forgive him that and Trump was their way of lashing out.
BubblesTheFish
No thanks.
EroticZombiePants
Okay, so if SCOTUS rules Trump didn't commit insurrection and rules the Jan 6 idiots can't be charged with 'obstructing an official proceeding' and Trump wins the 2024 election, is anyone on the left going to storm the capital or not?
walnutbreath
Fuck no! I'm not willing to risk another Trump presidency for a chance at four more years of a mediocre president. Obama was loved by the corporate media because they got to portray him as progressive despite his track record of being a corporate shill.
jplusc
is he allowed to run as vice-pres again?
Redyls
rather we live in a world where no one is above the law and we dont ignore it or apply it subjectively according to politics and bias.
DJThuglifeSupreme
Michelle would not be cool with that
BaddyOneShoe
How about anyone young enough to still have some skin in the game? Sub 60 year old would be nice. I wouldn't trust a 70+ year old to order a pizza online, why in the hell do we keep letting them run a country?
AnitaPeeeeee
Michelle would kill him.
gimlismellyfoot2410
Somewhere a maga cultist had a massive stroke at the mere thought of this
gimlismellyfoot2410
Somewhere a maga cultist had a massive stroke at the mere thought of this
BonafideHomicide
I would probably vote for Obama for the rest of my life
wadatahmydamie
I don’t want Obama back, Biden has been a better leader. Obama would make a stellar VP though. Harris is great, but there’s a lot of conspiracy theories about her - leftists think she’s an anti-drug crusader, and right-wingers are big mad that she had sex with a consenting adult
m0problems
Wait, who did she have sex with? I assumed Republicans were just mad because she happened to be a black woman
Nalianna
i had figured that no one cared what nazi's thought.
wadatahmydamie
You’d think, but you have leftists repeating some of the same conspiracy theories.
AsAHistorian
Pretty sure most people's complaint about Harris is that she doesn't seem to have done much of anything. If she's been busy, then she needs a better PR person.
wadatahmydamie
Not much of a historian if you’re relying on PR people to do your work for you. Biden’s accomplishments as VP include Obergefell v Hodges and repairing the economy in the face of a recession, but he didn’t get credit for that either because VPs just don’t get much spotlight.
AsAHistorian
Um. 1. It is literally the PR person's job to publicize their accomplishments; that's not them doing my job for me, that IS their job. 2. I'm a historian, so that means my job is to know everything the current VP is up to? What? My job as a historian is to study and teach Soviet history, it is not to pour over VP Harris' schedule and independently keep track of what she's up to. Is that what you think "[my] work" is? What a weird way to frame your insult.
GreenMnM
I didn't vote for Obama but damn he did a pretty good job. I did vote for Trump once.. only once... he did a shit job and I learned my lesson. I WAS one of those that believed his lies. I LEARNED MY LESSON. Take note: you can have your own opinions, change your mind when presented with facts, and decide something is no good when it proves to be a pile of shit.
Stefnos
frostybox
Thank you. But you are in the minority. People in the wrong make the sunk cost fallacy their entire personality.
Armouredfalcon
Ive heard from a couple of people who initially voted trump because they thought that he'd be a break from the establishment and shake things up in a way that created positive progress, and then very much regretted it when that didnt happen and did not vote for him again.
DangrebeTheMangrebe
It's good you figured out the ruse but boy are you dumb
GreenMnM
Thanks for that. Really appreciate you boiling my existence down to a simple sentence otherwise I might not have been able to follow along. Still had trouble sounding out that 3 sylable word...
DangrebeTheMangrebe
It's all part of the learning process
cissychandler
Or, hear me out, you could have listened to the majority of voters who told you he was a crook, liar, and serial abuser of women, substances and business partners...But instead we have a judiciary hell-bent on destroying women now. I'm glad you've had a change of heart, but to me it's too little too late.
GreenMnM
I actually voted for him bc I thought he'd be the one to shake us out of this political nightmare we've been living in. Where nothing gets done and only the people vet screwed while the politicians get rich. He had a golden opportunity to be a savior where one is desperately needed. Instead he chose to be a fuckwit. I vote in all elections but when the options are shit or worse, pure evil, then I write in someone who will actually make a difference. Like Bert and earnie. Or lilo and stitch.
enzio64
The 22nd Amendment needs to be overturned anyway. If the people choose to keep voting for someone, they should get to keep winning. OR the 22nd needs to apply to all of Congress as well.
[deleted]
[deleted]
LoquaciousDude
This is a terrible take. Countries with term limits generally have worse democracies. Term limits results in 2 extremely damaging things: 1) revolving door where politicians are mere standins for parties and policymakers, instead of being the parties and policy makers, shifting power away from the elected officials and to their parties, esp bad in a 2-party shithole where any candidacy has to be funded by the candidate, resulting in “fundraising”/diversion of priority. And 2) the inability to >
LoquaciousDude
become a career politician means politicians are, no matter what, gonna be concerned with what they can do after they hit term limit, often making them(combined with previous fact) increasing the likelyhood that they go get cushy jobs at some large corpo, sometimes in exchange for political favors. It’s a rather uniquely american notion that democracy is both good and bad, and it’s holding america back big time. It could be great but is just plain shit compared to other developed nations.
Ragnarshaw
Yeah because that wouldn’t set a dangerous precedent at all.
Youhavinagiraffe
You don't need to act like a rhetorical response is a serious suggestion. He's literally arguing the opposite, that neither man should be able to run for election again
WorstWurst
I think allowing a seditious traitor to run for the presidency while literally admitting he wants to dismantle the constitution sets a worse, more dangerous one.
Casually
I take this statement as more of an illustration to the MAGA crowd of just how dangerous of a precedent they are trying for.
Faasel524
Dangerous precedent over dangerous president.
VashTehStampede
Well stated, full marks!
JAPONfan
You think ignoring the 14th by a guy who want to be a king (as in delete the constitution) is not?
aflarge
This precedent being suggesting is that we DO ignore the 14th, AND the 22nd.
Ragnarshaw
I think he should be banned and arrested and tried for treason.
JAPONfan
We can only hope.
enzio64
Until he's convicted, is it a violation? I'm 100% on the side of "he's guilty AF," but I still believe in due process...
ReJokeStatistics
It is a violation as the 14th doesn't require a conviction to apply and many, if not most, of the confederates it was used on were 1/2
ReJokeStatistics
2/2 not even charged, much less convicted, for their actions. It was specifically written to not require a conviction.
HairyChairstepper
That's good news. Hopefully the constitution will be properly applied and keep the criminal out of the Whitehouse.
Higure
Trump hasn't been convicted in a court of law. That's a pretty big technicality. Presumably, that's the route the GOP is going to take when Colorado and Maine are sued to the Supreme Court in order to reinstate him in the primaries. And they could conceivably rule in Trump's favour and claim it's not a dangerous precedent, and maybe even claim that the opposite result (14A disqualification without prior conviction) would be more dangerous.
Eleshar24
Have the confederate insurrectionists been convicted in a court of law?
kuriosly
It's a little harder to argue the confederates were not in a rebellion, with the shooting and battles and all. Plus they signed one of those declaration things.
Eleshar24
I think the seeming "difficulty" to argue so with Trump comes from a) that it largely failed, b) that people forget. I remember vividly the first news we got about that in Europe and it was absolutely obvious that there is a fascist coup instigated by Trump.
Higure
"Absolutely obvious" is separate and distinct from "convicted for it in a court of law". The issue here is that the 14th amendment doesn't specify what is needed to qualify as parttaking in insurrection, or who decides whether parttaking took place. Resolving questions about the constitution and its amendments is one of the main roles of the SCOTUS. It could very well be that they decide that court conviction is what's necessary.
Higure
Consider what would happen if his disqualifications are held up. Which is to say, the power to 14A-disqualify a candidate lies with the election board in each separate state, rather than a court. Suddenly Texas decides, for some bogus reason, that Biden has insurrected, and refuses to put him on the ballot. It now becomes very difficult to argue what formally, objectively, and legally distinguishes the Colorado and Maine cases from the Texas one. Wasn't it up to the election boards to decide?
kuriosly
The news I got more or less played out as: 1) They marched on the capital building. 2) They broken into the capital building. 3) They milled about and got bored before leaving. I still think it doesn't quite qualify as an insurrection mostly because 1) The lack of any sort of organization about it. 2) They "Won" and then promptly gave up. It was destructive, and illegal, etc, but to me it seems to lack any serious effort to change the structure of power. That and that they gave up and went home.
kuriosly
I feel like the insurrectionist label stuck more or less because of our modern presence for extreme language for an emotional response. After all, it wasn't a "riot", it was a "insurrection," just like for some, have any criticism of Hamas, you support murdering children, or if you find issues with immigration, your a nazi. polarizing language is all the rage these days.
Eleshar24
I remember the "hang Mike Pence" part because he didn't agree to not certify the vote. I remember the insurrectionists equiped to handcuff the representatives. I remember the cop beaten by a flag, I remember the shooting in the house. I remember Trump (you know, the guy who was president at the time, didn't recognise the election results and wanted to stay in power) inciting the mob. It was plain as day.